Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

beige.party

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 307 posts

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#191

Post by Aspos »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #174
Aspos wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's an illusion, that's the thing. You can't physically have (C) without the (A). Large corporations will spend billions trying to convince the population it is somehow possible, but the reality is different.

You absolutely can have (C) without widespread (A), you just need to limit the audience that gets the tools, and in fact the big labs are already engaging in (C) in collaboration with the government and vendors of critical software. That you don't have access to (C) to harden your blog is a non-issue from a societal perspective, hardening the software that our infrastructure relies on first is simply more important.

Limiting progress by letting only select corporations access the stuff is how you fall behind China, UAE and in a few years even Kazakhstan.

Whoever wants to have access to (A) will have it, but letting only few select corporations provide (C) will mean majority will be priced out of (C).

Are you a shill or something?

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#192

Post by shwaj »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #153
CamperBob2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The support of OSS models on HN just days after finding out about the message board incident is so bizarre to me. Other sites beckon.

Yes, I'm aware that the HN majority is a hyper-libertarian echo chamber that loves to outsource the problem of "technology hurting regular people" if it means they get to keep their toys/investments. After all, who cares if abliterated extremely intelligent OSS models result in actual innocent people dying? That's problem. We need to be able to generate our uncensored furry fanfics, goddamnit!

The risks of open models are real.

However, I’d feel better about ceding control of AI to the government if they didn’t seem so intent on building an apparatus for surveillance/control.

Your “furry fanfic” is a somewhat pathetic scarecrow; this is a complicated topic.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#193

Post by jdm2212 »

easterncalculus wrote: post #109
peter422 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I don't think this is true. Intention matter a lot in US law. If you could prove the AI did something bad entirely on its own and you had nothing to do with it and had no reasonable belief it was possible, I think you'd be alright. People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

> Intention matter a lot in US law. Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is more than enough to ruin your life. The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.

Who was prosecuted under CFAA for something they did not intend to do?

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#194

Post by jdm2212 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #178
mikeyouse wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not remotely true. Mens rea is a necessary precondition to establish criminal culpability for tons of crimes. Well before sentencing is ever considered. The far opposite, ‘strict liability’, where you’re guilty of a crime purely due to some action or inaction (the actus reus) is exceedingly rare in the US justice system. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea

Baloney, lots of people go to jail for DUIs, and that's the right analogy here. People don't drink and drive with the intention to kill people. They drink because it's fun and then get behind the wheel because it's easy and convenient, even though they know the dangers they convince themselves nothing that bad will happen. AI companies are creating these dangerous, powerful models (that they keep telling us are dange…

Drunk driving is an actus reus offense basically everywhere, so it's not analogous at all.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#195

Post by EyeEmOe »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #134
ALLTaken wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government or OpenAI and Anthrophic? Because if you mean the Government, I think they frankly just care whoever is paying them to make an executive order or worse a law paid by corporations to not only block, but ideally also ANHILIATE ANY POTENTIAL COMPETITION. It's the ultimatum against the small guys. Sold as "Anti-China", when in reality it's only purpose is total dependency to corporations by law.

The support of OSS models on HN just days after finding out about the message board incident is so bizarre to me. Do you guys really not comprehend the impact of giving every script kiddie an Astra-equivalent model to play with, this time without any guardrails whatsoever? Cause I'm starting to think you aren't really thinking through the impact of power plants, hospitals, etc all being hacked en masse. People will d…

So long as real logistics systems are isolated and secured what real risk to stable society is there?

Your use of the internet may lead you to greatly overestimate the number of people who take what they read online as real. More people than you think treat this shit, regardless of the website/forum, like Jerry Springer and Satuday Night Live; just entertainment.

The STEM crowd often overthinks the impact of violating their pet theory.

Can an LLM escape its computer entirely and stomp through a city center like a kaiju? Settle down.

You're veering towards thought policing over speculation.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#196

Post by pllbnk »

sph wrote: post #173
serbuvlad wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethics aside, you can create an NGO with three people and do a lot of stuff in it's name that you can't do as a private individual or it would be a lot more expensive to do. If everyone did this, it would stop being a special ability of some people.

> do a lot of stuff in it's name that you can't do as a private individual Can you do murder? Otherwise I’m not interested. Joking aside, what exactly could you do legally with an NGO?

> Can you do murder?

Only if it kills many people over the long time.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#197

Post by mafuy »

lelanthran wrote: post #157
peter422 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I don't think this is true. Intention matter a lot in US law. If you could prove the AI did something bad entirely on its own and you had nothing to do with it and had no reasonable belief it was possible, I think you'd be alright. People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

Intention (mens rea) is not a get out of jail free card, it just changes the nature of the crime and charges you get convicted off. If you run someone over on purpose you get convicted of murder. If You do it by driving recklessly you get convicted of culpable homicide. The only time you get off with nothing is if it is determined to be an accident. As they always say: ignorance of the law is no excuse. Running a dan…

Especially if they kept telling us how dangerous the machine is.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#198

Post by fwlr »

gchamonlive wrote: post #135
stephbook wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not "permanently stored" or "downloaded", they're just cached on his personal, geographically advantageous edge device for low-latency interaction.

Finding it hard to connect this comment to my OC, did you mean to comment on another thread? If not could you elaborate?

It’s a cynical joke, imagine a person having a personal computer, but in the responsibility-divesting way that corporations have “special purpose vehicle” debt-holding “technically a legally separate entity to us!” shell corporations.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#199

Post by ACCount37 »

Retro_Dev wrote: post #188
ACCount37 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope! If a tree was healthy and there was no reason to expect that it would fall, and you did nothing to make it fall? Then you're not responsible if it falls anyway. You're only responsible if it was you chopping it down - or if you completely neglected the tree for long enough that it became a property hazard. Likewise: I doubt the owner will be held responsible for the first case in all of recorded history of an u…

With AI, we give it the ability to do things. As we can give it this ability, we are responsible for what it does with that ability. LLMs are predictive models, and while we can expect things to go right, we know that things can also go wrong. As such, it is our responsibility to limit or sanitize their output. If you are the one giving unrestricted and unsanitized tool access to a large language model, then you are…

You gave the tree the ability to fall when you decided to plant it. It wouldn't have that ability if you didn't. And we already know that trees can fall, don't we?

That doesn't make you inherently responsible for the tree falling down in a freak storm 3 decades down the line.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#200

Post by AngryData »

peter422 wrote: post #89
sspiff wrote: post #81

This resonates with me. The past few months, frontier AI labs were rushing to announce "no, our AI bot broke out of its sandbox and committed crime first and harder than yours". I said to so friends back then: if I posted about how I ran GLM 5.2 or whatever I was running then in some shoddily built sandbox and it escaped and accidentally hacked some US company, I'd probably already have been extradited to the US and…

FWIW I don't think this is true. Intention matter a lot in US law. If you could prove the AI did something bad entirely on its own and you had nothing to do with it and had no reasonable belief it was possible, I think you'd be alright. People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

Well that and you spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to reinforce that point and make the prosecution rethink whether they will profit off of this case or not.

US law doesn't really give much of a crap about your intentions unless you can back it up with a wall of money to exclude yourself from the rules of the general population.

Post reply on HN